ON THE POSTERITY OF CAIN AND HIS EXILE (DE POSTERITATE CAINI)
ANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION
The treatise begins with a denunciation of anthropomorphism and a defence of allegorical interpretation suggested by the statement that “Cain went out from the face of God” (1–7).
What the Lawgiver teaches by these words is that the soul that forfeits with Adam, or forgoes with Cain, the power of seeing God, loses the joy of the quest of Him, experienced by Moses and by Abraham (8–21); and incurs instability, in lieu of the firm standing gained by them through nearness to God (22–32). Moreover, he is ‘wedded’ to the impious view that “man is the measure of all things,” and fails to regard his offspring, as Seth regarded his, as the gift of God (33–48).
The “city builded” by Cain is the creed set up by every impious soul. Its buildings are arguments, its inhabitants the self-conceited, its law lawlessness, its tower of confusion (Babel) the defence of its tenets. Even the lovers of Virtue are forced by the worldly to build such cities for them (49–59).
At this point (§ 60) Philo stops to illustrate, from the instance of Hebron, how names, like ‘Enoch,’ ‘Methuselah,’ ‘Lamech,’ can have two discrepant shades of meaning, as they have when borne by descendants of Cain and when borne by descendants of Seth. He is also led to give examples of that which is later in time being given precedence over what is earlier, as Hebron was placed above Zoan (60–65).
Having now made clear the nature of the creed which the Cain-like soul sets up, Philo turns to its offspring—‘Gaidad’ (or ‘Irad)’ is the “flock” of untended irrational faculties. ‘Maiel’ (or ‘Mehu-jael’) means “away from the Love of God”; ‘Methuselah’ is one “incurring soul death”; and Lamech one “low-cringing”; who “takes to himself” as wives Adah and Zillah (66–74).
Here Philo cannot refrain from pointing out the wrongness of a man taking a wife to himself instead of receiving her as a gift from God. He makes an attempt to account for the fact that the self-same expression is used of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses (75–78).
‘Adah’ = ‘Witness,’ and is like success, leading us to think our actions right because of what they bring. Her son is ‘Jobel’ = “one altering,” the remover of Virtue’s boundaries fixed by right reason, making virtues vices (79–93).
Here follow some subtle remarks on Leviticus 27:32 f. (“both shall be holy”), and on the proofs of holiness, and the number 10, all tending to show that the Law is opposed to ‘altering’ (94–97).
Jobel is also the father of rearers of ‘cattle’; and cattle” are soul-less passions (98 f.).
Jobel’s son is Jubal, the uttered word, “inclining this way and that,” with no sure, firm, speech. He is also the originator of musical instruments, which are inferior to song-birds, but, like articulate speech, capable of such varied utterance, that it is natural that they should be invented by one who knows no abiding, and is son of one who alters all things (100–111).
Adah having been dealt with (79–111), we turn to Zillah, whose name signifies “shadow,” and who is therefore a symbol, of the unsubstantial goods of the body and the outside world. Her son, Tubal, bears a name meaning “all in one,” and represents the “health and wealth” which men deem the sum of human bliss. He is, by trade, a ‘hammerer,’ maker of war and munitions of war, for lusts are the real war-makers and batterers of mankind. Verily is he son of ‘Shadow.’ His sister is Noeman or “fatness,” the product of plenty (112–123).
Lamech, his wives and progeny having been dealt with (73–123), we are brought to Seth, in whom the murdered Abel comes to life. His name signifies “Watering,” for the Mind waters the senses, as the Word of God waters the Virtues, which are symbolized by the four “heads” of the river going out of Eden. The word “heads” is used to indicate the sovereignty conferred by Virtues. The “River” is the Word of God, ever flowing for souls that love God.
“Watering” is so apt a figure of teaching, that Philo is soon showing us Hagar, who represents preliminary education, filling her water-skin from the well of knowledge, to give drink to the boy, who is the soul in its first craving for instruction, that he may grow up to be an ‘archer,’ directing arguments with sure aim. But Philo hastens to give us the picture of Rebecca supplying the water of perfection to the servant of Abraham. Her going down to the well of God’s wisdom shows us that a sense of our own weakness is the beginning of stepping upwards. Her pitcher represents the directness of spiritual teaching, in contrast with the earlier, indirect, instruction through the senses and sensible objects, represented by Hagar’s bulky water-skin.
Every detail of Rebecca’s behaviour to Eliezer brings out a characteristic of the true teacher. She addresses him respectfully. She forgets self in her concern for his need. She says “Drink,” not “I will give thee to drink.” She lets the pitcher down on her left fore-arm and tilts it, suiting her action to the ‘pupil’s’ capacity. She does not forget to water the camels, i.e. to encourage memory, for these animals chew the cud; and they are watered from the well, itself a symbol of memory, from whose depths we draw by the aid of a reminder. The readiness of the camel for toil brings Philo to the Water of Marah, and to the tree by means of which the Israelites, after their toilsome march from Egypt, tasted the sweetness that is essential to fruitful toil. Philo cannot pass over the water which the worshippers of the golden calf were made to drink. His main point is that the grinding down of the calf, the symbol, like Egypt and the animals it worshipped, of the body, shows the inferiority of bodily advantages. Then the ear-rings of which the calf was made show the inferiority of hearing to sight, and the greatness of intuition, implied in the words “See that I AM,” words which are equivalent to “Behold My subsistence,” the essence or quality of God being invisible (138–169).
Returning to Gen. 4:25 Philo deduces from the word “raised up out of” (the earth) the doctrine that God sows nothing futile in our souls. He takes the word “another” (seed) to mean ‘other than Cain’ in one way, ‘other than Abel’ in another way, and goes on to work out Seth’s ‘otherness’ from Abel. Whereas Abel has relinquished all that is mortal, and gone hence to a higher life, Seth, sprung from human excellence, will never relinquish the human race, but be ‘enlarged’ in it. He is ‘enlarged’ in righteous Noah, the tenth from Adam; in faithful Abraham, another tenth; in Moses, wise in all things, seventh from Abraham. The limit of knowledge attained by Seth is Noah’s starting-point; Noah’s limit is Abraham’s starting-point; and Abraham’s limit the starting-point of Moses (170–174).
In the passage with which the treatise closes we have one of the writer’s contrasts. “God hath raised up to me” is contrasted with the folly and impiety of Lot and his daughters, ‘Counsel’ and ‘Consent,’ and with Rachel’s faulty cry to Jacob, “Give me children.” As she learned from Jacob’s rebuke, “Am I in the place of God?” to say “Let God add to me another son,” so let us, if we so err, repent. The gross sin of Onan is rebuked, and the act of Phinehas the “Mouth-muzzle,” is interpreted as meaning that “he put a stop to the revolt within himself, and turned clean away from his own pleasure.” The last words are a reflection, as appropriate to the twentieth as to the first century, that the soul is the theatre of the most dire wars, and that all wars come from disordered souls (175–185).